Modern liberalism in the United States

Part of a series on
Liberalism
Development History of liberalism Contributions to liberal theory
Ideas Political liberalism Political freedom Cultural liberalism Democratic capitalism Democratic education Economic liberalism Free trade · Individualism Laissez faire Liberal democracy Liberal neutrality Negative / positive liberty Market economy · Open society Popular sovereignty Rights (individual) Separation of church and state
Schools American · Anarcho-liberalism Classical · Conservative Democratic · Green Libertarianism · Market National · Neoliberalism Ordoliberalism · Paleoliberalism Radicalism · Social
People John Locke · Adam Smith Adam Ferguson Thomas Jefferson Thomas Paine · David Hume Baron de Montesquieu Immanuel Kant · Jeremy Bentham Thomas Malthus Wilhelm von Humboldt Frederic Bastiat John Stuart Mill · Thomas Hill Green Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse John Maynard Keynes Bertrand Russell Ludwig von Mises Friedrich von Hayek · Isaiah Berlin John Rawls · Robert Nozick
Regional variants Worldwide Europe · United States By country
Religious liberalism Christian · Islamic · Jewish
Organizations Liberal parties Liberal International International Federation of Liberal Youth (IFLRY) European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE) European Liberal Youth (LYMEC) Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD) Africa Liberal Network (ALN) Liberal Network for Latin America (Relial)
Liberalism portal
v • d • e

Modern American liberalism is a form of social liberalism developed from progressive ideals such as Theodore Roosevelt's New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal, John F. Kennedy's New Frontier, and Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. It combines social liberalism and social progressivism with support for a welfare state and a mixed economy. American liberal causes include voting rights for African Americans, abortion rights for women, and government entitlements such as education and health care.^[1]

Keynesian economic theory plays an influential role in the economic philosophy of American liberals.^[2] These policy stances adhere to the central premise that individual freedom can only exist when it is protected by a strong, democratically elected government that has an active role in society and the economy.^[3][4]

John F. Kennedy, a self-described liberal, defined a liberal as follows:

Most American liberals support a mixed economy because they fear the extremes of wealth and poverty under unrestrained capitalism; they point to the widespread prosperity enjoyed under a mixed economy in the years since World War II.^[6][7] They believe that all citizens are entitled to the basic necessities of life and they champion the protection of the environment.^[4][8] Modern American liberalism is typically associated with the Democratic Party.^[9]

As of June 2010, 40% of American voters identify themselves as conservatives, 36% as moderates and 22% as liberals.^[9] There has been a high level of stability over the last two decades. In 1992 40% of voters called themselves conservative, 35% moderate and 18% liberal^[10]

[edit] American versus European use of the term "liberalism"

The word "liberalism" has a somewhat different meaning in the United States and, to a lesser extent, in Britain than it does in continental Europe, where it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies^[11][12] and more closely corresponds to the American definition of libertarianism (a term that in Europe is often restricted to left-libertarianism).

Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1956), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."^[12]

Contemporary "liberalism" therefore in the US refers to the welfare-state policies of the New Deal, while in Europe "liberals" have policies similar to American conservatives.^[11] For example, continental Europeans apply the term "liberal" mainly to an economic liberties, such as free markets and pro-business policies.

In late 20th century and early 21st century political discourse in the United States, the term liberalism has come to mean support for freedom of speech, separation of church and state, reproductive rights for women, equal rights for minorities (blacks, women, Hispanics, gays and lesbians), and multilateralism and international institutions. All of these aims are mostly shared by British and other European liberals. American liberals also believe in the relief of poverty by government intervention, universal healthcare, a progressive income tax, a positive role for organized labor, and environmentalism. In Europe these views are shared by Social Democrats, but not necessarily by liberals, especially in France and continental Europe, where classical economic liberal views are prominent among liberal parties. Britain's liberals would agree with most of these positions, but affirmative action would be described as an illiberal policy.

However, there are also major distinctions between modern American liberalism and the European notion of social democracy, specifically, the lack of socialist influences and programs. Firstly, while socialists generally follow the principle of maximin (and believe the state is the proper organization to achieve it), American liberals are more likely to limit government actions to the point where they guarantee a decent quality of life, and decent public services to working families and poor workers. Social democratic programs are aimed at providing national welfare programs for the entire country, while American liberal social programs are designed to assist only lower-class individuals. Secondly, American liberals are less likely to countenance nationalization of private sector industries as a solution to any problem; this is in contrast to socialists, who often have sought or implemented nationalization of industries in their countries. Third, American liberalism attempts to achieve a fairer distribution of power in society, as opposed to just a more fair distribution of wealth.

The political discourse in Australia is different to both America's and Europe's. The Australian political party known as The Liberal Party holds an ideology which would be called conservative in the US. The British Liberal Democrats have an understanding of liberalism somewhat similar to that of modern American liberalism, although without the communitarian aspect; in 2010 they joined a governing coalition with the Conservative Party. The Liberal Party of Canada also shares some views similar to that of modern American liberalism, but in a distinctive Canadian context.

[edit] Demographics of American liberals

While it is difficult to gather demographic information on ideological groups, some studies have been conducted. Liberalism remains most popular among those in academia and liberals commonly tend to be highly educated and relatively affluent. According to recent surveys by the New York Times and CBS News, between 18% and 27% of American adults identify as liberal, versus moderate or conservative.^[13] In the 2008 presidential election, exit polls showed that 22% of the electorate self-identified as "liberal."^[14] In the 2000, 2004 and 2006 elections, the vast majority of liberals voted in favor of the Democrats.^[15][16][17]

According to a 2004 study by the Pew Research Center, liberals were the most educated ideological demographic and were tied with the conservative sub-group, the "Enterprisers", for the most affluent group. Of those who identified as liberal, 49% were college graduates and 41% had household incomes exceeding $75,000, compared to 27% and 28% as the national average, respectively.^[18] Liberalism also remains the dominant political ideology in academia, with 72% of full-time faculty identifying as liberal in a 2004 study.^[19] The social sciences and humanities were most liberal, whereas business and engineering departments were the least liberal, though even in the business departments, liberals outnumbered conservatives 49% to 39%.

[edit] History of modern liberalism in the United States

Scholar of liberalism Arthur Schlesinger Jr., writing in 1956, said that liberalism in the United States includes both a "laissez-faire" form and a "government intervention" form. He holds that liberalism in the United States is aimed toward achieving "equality of opportunity for all" but it is the means of achieving this that changes depending on the circumstances. He says that the "process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security."^[12]

Some make the distinction between "American classical liberalism" and the "new liberalism."^[20]

[edit] Early modern liberalism

Rossinow (2008) traces the history of the close relations between liberals and the Left, starting in the 1880s, peaking in the 1930s, and ending in the 1940s. In the 1880s intellectual reformers typified by sociologist Lester Frank Ward transformed Victorian liberalism, retaining its commitment to civil liberties and individual rights while casting off its advocacy of laissez-faire economics. They at times supported the growing working-class labor unions, and sometimes even the socialists to their left. These liberals rallied behind Theodore Roosevelt, Robert LaFollette and Woodrow Wilson to fight big trusts (big corporations). They stressed ideals of social justice and the use of government to solve social and economic problems. Women such as Jane Addams and Florence Kelley were among the leaders of the left-liberal tradition. There was a tension between sympathy with labor unions and the goal to apply scientific expertise by disinterested experts. When liberals became anti-Communist in the 1940s they purged leftists from the liberal movement.^[21]

Sociologist Lester Frank Ward (1841–1913) was a key intellectual and the first to effectively combine classical liberal theory with progressivism to help define what would become the modern welfare state after 1933.^[22]

Political writer Herbert Croly (1869–1930) helped to define the new liberalism through the New Republic magazine (1914–present), and numerous influential books. Croly presented the case for a planned economy, increased spending on education, and the creation of a society based on the "brotherhood of mankind." His highly influential 1909 book The Promise of American Life proposed to raise the general standard of living by means of economic planning; Croly opposed aggressive unionization. In The Techniques of Democracy (1915) he argued against both dogmatic individualism and dogmatic socialism.^[23]

[edit] The New Deal

President Franklin D. Roosevelt came to office in 1933 amid the economic calamity of the Great Depression, offering the nation a New Deal intended to alleviate economic desperation and joblessness, provide greater opportunities, and restore prosperity. His presidency from 1933 to 1945, the longest in US history, was marked by an increased role for the federal government in addressing the nation's economic and social problems. Work relief programs provided jobs, ambitious projects such as the Tennessee Valley Authority were created to promote economic development, and a social security system was established. The Great Depression dragged on through the early and middle 1930s, showing some signs of relief later in the decade, though full recovery didn't come until the total mobilization of US economic, social, and military resources for the Allied cause in World War II. The New Deal programs to relieve the Depression are generally regarded as a mixed success in ending the nation's economic problems on a macroeconomic level. Still, although fundamental economic indicators may have remained depressed, the programs of the New Deal were extremely popular, as they improved the life of the common citizen, by providing jobs for the unemployed, legal protection for labor unionists, modern utilities for rural America, living wages for the working poor, and price stability for the family farmer. Economic progress for minorities, however, was hindered by discrimination, an issue often avoided by Roosevelt's administration.^[24]

The New Deal consisted of three types of programs designed to produce "Relief, Recovery and Reform":^[25] Relief was the immediate effort to help the one-third of the population that was hardest hit by the depression. Roosevelt expanded Hoover's FERA work relief program, and added the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), Public Works Administration (PWA), and starting in 1935 the Works Progress Administration (WPA). In 1935 the Social Security Act (SSA) and unemployment insurance programs were added. Separate programs were set up for relief in rural America, such as the Resettlement Administration and Farm Security Administration.

Recovery was the goal of restoring the economy to pre-Depression levels. It involved "pump priming" (greater spending of government funds in an effort to stimulate the economy, including deficit spending), dropping the gold standard, and efforts to increase farm prices and foreign trade by lowering tarriffs. Many programs were funded through a Hoover program of loans and loan guarantees, overseen by the Reconstruction Finance Corporation (RFC).

Reform was based on the assumption that the depression was caused by the inherent instability of the market and that government intervention was necessary to rationalize and stabilize the economy, and to balance the interests of farmers, business and labor. Reform measures included the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), regulation of Wall Street by the Securities Exchange Act (SEA), the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) for farm programs, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance for bank deposits enacted through the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, and the 1935 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) (also known as the Wagner Act) dealing with labor-management relations. Despite urgings by some New Dealers, there was no major anti-trust program. Roosevelt opposed socialism (in the sense of state ownership of the means of production), and only one major program, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), involved government ownership of the means of production (that is power plants and electrical grids). The conservatives feared the New Deal meant socialism; Roosevelt noted privately in 1934 that the "old line press harps increasingly on state socialism and demands the return to the good old days."^[26]

[edit] Foreign affairs

In international affairs, Roosevelt's presidency until 1938 reflected the isolationism that dominated practically all of American politics at the time. After 1938 he moved toward interventionism as the world hurtled toward war^[27] Anticipating the post-war period, Roosevelt strongly supported proposals to create a United Nations organization as a means of encouraging mutual cooperation to solve problems on the international stage. His commitment to internationalist ideals was in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, except that FDR learned from Wilson's mistakes regarding the League of Nations; FDR included Republicans in shaping foreign policy, and insisted the U.S. have a veto at the UN.^[28]

[edit] Embedded liberalism

The term embedded liberalism, credited to John Ruggie,^[29] refers not to a political philosophy but rather to the economic system which dominated worldwide from the end of World War II to the 1970s. This is the economic system liberals were responding to at the inception of modern liberalism.

[edit] Liberalism during the Cold War

American liberalism of the Cold War era was the immediate heir to Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal and the somewhat more distant heir to the Progressives of the early 20th century. Rossinow (2008) argues that after 1945 the left-liberal alliance that operated during the New Deal years split apart for good over the issue of Communism. Anti-communist liberals, led by Walter Reuther and Hubert Humphrey expelled the far-left from labor unions and the New Deal Coalition, and committed the Democratic Party to a strong Cold War policy typified by NATO and the containment of Communism. Liberals became committed to a quantitative goal of economic growth that accepted large near-monopolies such as General Motors and ATT, while rejecting the structural transformation dreamed of by earlier left-liberals. The far left had its last hurrah in Henry A. Wallace’s 1948 third-party presidential campaign. Wallace supported further New Deal reforms and opposed the Cold War, but his campaign was taken over by the far left and Wallace retired from politics in disgust.^[30]

Most prominent and constant among the positions of Cold War liberalism were^[30]:

• Support for a domestic economy built on a balance of power between labor (in the form of organized unions) and management (with a tendency to be more interested in large corporations than in small business).
• A foreign policy focused on containing the Soviet Union and its allies.
• The continuation and expansion of New Deal social welfare programs (in the broad sense of welfare, including programs such as Social Security).
• An embrace of Keynesian economics. By way of compromise with political groupings to their right, this often became, in practice, military Keynesianism^[31].

In some ways this resembled what in other countries was referred to as social democracy. However, unlike European social democrats, US liberals never widely endorsed nationalization of industry but favored regulation for public benefit.

In the 1950s and 1960s, both major US political parties included liberal and conservative factions. The Democratic Party had two wings: on the one hand, Northern and Western liberals, on the other generally conservative Southern whites. Difficult to classify were the northern big city Democratic "political machines". The urban machines had supported New Deal economic policies, but faded with the coming of prosperity and the assimilation of ethnic groups; nearly all collapsed by the 1960s in the face of racial violence in the cities^[32]

The Republican Party included the moderate to-liberal Wall Street and the moderate-to-conservative Main Street. The more liberal wing, strongest in the Northeast, was far more supportive of New Deal programs, labor unions, and an internationalist foreign policy^[33].

In the late 1940s, liberals generally did not see Harry S. Truman as one of their own, viewing him as a Democratic Party hack. However, liberal politicians and liberal organizations such as the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA) sided with Truman in opposing Communism both at home and abroad, sometimes at the expense of civil liberties. For example, ADA co-founder and archetypal Cold War liberal Hubert Humphrey unsuccessfully sponsored (in 1950) a Senate bill to establish detention centers where those declared subversive by the President could be held without trial^[34].

Nonetheless, liberals opposed McCarthyism and were central to McCarthy's downfall^[35].

Combating conservatism was not high on the liberal agenda, for by 1950, the liberal ideology was so intellectually dominant that the literary critic Lionel Trilling could note that "liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition... there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in circulation."^[36]

[edit] The liberal coalition

Politically, starting in the late 1940s there was a powerful labor-liberal coalition with strong grassroots support, energetic well-funded organizations, and a cadre of supporters in Congress^[37]. On labor side was the American Federation of Labor (AFL) and the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO), which merged into the AFL-CIO in 1955^[38], the United Auto Workers (UAW)^[39], union lobbyists, and the Committee on Political Education's (COPE)^[40], which organized turnout campaigns and publicity at elections. Walter Reuther of the UAW was the leader of liberalism in the labor movement, and his autoworkers generously funded the cause^[41]

The main liberal organizations, out of hundreds, included the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the American Jewish Congress (AJC), the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights (LCCR), the National Committee for an Effective Congress (NCEC), and the Americans for Democratic Action (ADA)^[42]. Key allies in Congress included Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota^[43], Paul Douglas of Illinois, Henry Jackson of Washington^[44], Walter Mondale of Minnesota^[45], and Claude Pepper of Florida in the Senate^[46] Leaders in the House included Representatives Frank Thompson of New Jersey, Richard Bolling of Missouri, and other members of the Democratic Study Group^[47]. Although for years they had largely been frustrated by the Conservative Coalition, the liberal coalition suddenly came to power in 1963 and were ready with proposals that became central to the Great Society^[48]

[edit] Great Society: 1964-68

The climax of liberalism came in the mid-1960s with the success of President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-69) in securing congressional passage of his Great Society programs, including civil rights, the end of segregation, Medicare, extension of welfare, federal aid to education at all levels, subsidies for the arts and humanities, environmental activism, and a series of programs designed to wipe out poverty^[49][50]. As recent historians have explained:

"Gradually, liberal intellectuals crafted a new vision for achieving economic and social justice. The liberalism of the early 1960s contained no hint of radicalism, little disposition to revive new deal era crusades against concentrated economic power, and no intention to fan class passions or redistribute wealth or restructure existing institutions. Internationally it was strongly anti-Communist. It aimed to defend the free world, to encourage economic growth at home, and to ensure that the resulting plenty was fairly distributed. Their agenda-much influenced by Keynesian economic theory-envisioned massive public expenditure that would speed economic growth, thus providing the public resources to fund larger welfare, housing, health, and educational programs."^[51]

Johnson was rewarded with an electoral landslide in 1964 against conservative Barry Goldwater, which broke the decades-long control of Congress by the Conservative coalition. But the Republicans bounced back in 1966, and as the Democratic party splintered five ways, Republicans elected Richard Nixon in 1968. Nixon largely continued the New Deal and Great Society programs he inherited^[52]; conservative reaction would come with the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980^[53].

[edit] Liberals and civil rights

Cold War liberalism emerged at a time when most African Americans, especially in the South, were politically and economically disenfranchised. Beginning with To Secure These Rights, an official report issued by the Truman White House in 1947, self-proclaimed liberals increasingly embraced the civil rights movement. In 1948, President Truman desegregated the armed forces and the Democrats inserted a strong civil rights "plank" (provision) in the Democratic party platform. Legislatively, the civil rights movement would culminate in the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965^[54].

During the 1960s, relations between white liberals and the civil rights movement became increasingly strained; civil rights leaders accused liberal politicians of temporizing and procrastinating. Although President Kennedy sent federal troops to compel the University of Mississippi to admit African American James Meredith in 1962, and civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. toned down the March on Washington (1963) at Kennedy's behest, the failure to seat the delegates of the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party at the 1964 Democratic National Convention indicated a growing rift. President Johnson could not understand why the rather impressive civil rights laws passed under his leadership had failed to immunize Northern and Western cities from rioting. At the same time, the civil rights movement itself was becoming fractured. By 1966, a Black Power movement had emerged; Black Power advocates accused white liberals of trying to control the civil rights agenda. Proponents of Black Power wanted African-Americans to follow an "ethnic model" for obtaining power^{[citation needed]}, not unlike that of Democratic political machines in large cities. This put them on a collision course with urban machine politicians. And, on its most extreme edges, the Black Power movement contained racial separatists who wanted to give up on integration altogether — a program that could not be endorsed by American liberals of any race. The mere existence of such individuals (who always got more media attention than their actual numbers might have warranted) contributed to "white backlash" against liberals and civil rights activists^[54].

[edit] Paleoliberalism and neoconservatives

According to Michael Lind, in the late 1960s and early 1970s many "anti-Soviet, pro-Israel liberals and social democrats, especially those around Commentary magazine^[55] as well as supporters of Senator Henry ("Scoop") Jackson helped found the neoconservative movement. Many joined the administrations of Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, and attacked liberalism vocally in the media and scholarly outlets^[56].

[edit] Liberals and Vietnam

While the civil rights movement isolated liberals from their erstwhile allies, the Vietnam War threw a wedge into the liberal ranks, dividing pro-war "hawks" such as Senator Henry M. Jackson from "doves" such as 1972 Presidential candidate Senator George McGovern. As the war became the leading political issue of the day, agreement on domestic matters was not enough to hold the liberal consensus together.^[57]

In the 1960 presidential campaign, Kennedy was liberal in domestic policy but conservative on foreign policy, calling for a much more aggressive stance against Communism than his opponent Richard Nixon.

As opposition to the war grew, a large portion of that opposition came from within liberal ranks. In 1968, the Dump Johnson movement forced Democratic President Johnson out of the race for his own party's nomination for the presidency. Assassination removed Robert Kennedy from contention and Vice President Hubert Humphrey emerged from the disastrous 1968 Democratic National Convention with the presidential nomination of a deeply divided party. The party's right wing had seceded to run Governor of Alabama George Wallace, and some on the left chose to sit out the election rather than vote for a man so closely associated with the Johnson administration (and with Chicago mayor Richard J. Daley). The result was a narrow victory for Republican Richard Nixon, a man who, although a California native, was largely regarded as from the old Northeast Republican Establishment, and quite liberal in many areas himself. Nixon enacted many liberal policies, including the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency, establishing the Drug Enforcement Agency, normalizing relations with Communist China, and starting the Strategic Arms Limitation Talks to reduce ballistic missile availability.

[edit] Nixon and the liberal consensus

While the differences between Nixon and the liberals are obvious – the liberal wing of his own party favored politicians like Nelson Rockefeller and William Scranton, and Nixon overtly placed an emphasis on "law and order" over civil liberties, and Nixon's Enemies List was composed largely of liberals – in some ways the continuity of many of Nixon's policies with those of the Kennedy-Johnson years is more remarkable than the differences. Pointing at this continuity, Noam Chomsky (himself on Nixon's enemies list) has called Nixon, "in many respects the last liberal president."^[58]

Although liberals turned increasingly against the Vietnam War, to the point of running the very dovish George McGovern for President in 1972, the war had, as noted above, been of largely liberal origin. Similarly, while many liberals condemned actions such as the Nixon administrations support for the 1973 Chilean coup, it was not entirely dissimilar to the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961 or the marine landing in the Dominican Republic in 1965.

The political dominance of the liberal consensus even into the Nixon years can best be seen in policies such as the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency or his (failed) proposal to replace the welfare system with a guaranteed annual income by way of a negative income tax. Affirmative action in its most quota-oriented form was a Nixon administration policy. Even the Nixon "War on Drugs" allocated two-thirds of its funds for treatment, a far higher ratio than was to be the case under any subsequent President, Republican or Democrat. Additionally, Nixon's normalization of diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China and his policy of détente with the Soviet Union were probably more popular with liberals than with his conservative base.

An opposing view, offered by Cass R. Sunstein, in The Second Bill of Rights (Basic Books, 2004, ISBN 0-465-08332-3) argues that Nixon, through his Supreme Court appointments, effectively ended a decades-long expansion under US law of economic rights along the lines of those put forward in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the United Nations General Assembly.

[edit] Labor unions

Labor union were central components of liberalism, operating through the New Deal Coalition.^[59] The unions gave strong support to the Vietnam War, thereby breaking with the blacks and with the intellectual and student wings of liberalism. From time to time dissident groups such as Progressive Alliance, the Citizen-Labor Energy Coalition, and the National Labor Committee broke from the dominant AFL-CIO, which they saw as too conservative. In 1995 the liberals managed to take control of the AFL-CIO, under the leadership of John Sweeney of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). Union membership and power continued to decline, however. In 2005 the SEIU, now led by Andy Stern broke away from the AFL-CIO to form its own coalition, the Change to Win Federation, to support liberalism, including the Obama agenda, especially health care reform. Stern retired in 2010.^[60]

[edit] Environmentalism

A new, unexpected political discourse emerged in the 1970s centered on the environment.^[61] The debates did not fall neatly into a left-right dimension, for everyone proclaimed their support for the environment. Environmentalism appealed to the well-educated middle class, but aroused fears among lumbermen, farmers, ranchers, blue collar workers, automobile companies and oil companies whose economic interests were threatened by new regulations.^[62] Conservatives therefore tended to oppose environmentalism while liberals endorsed new measures to protect the environment.^[63] Liberals supported the Wilderness Society and the Sierra Club, and were sometimes successful in blocking efforts by lumber companies and oil drillers to expand operations. Environmental legislation limited the use of DDT, reduced acid rain, and protected numerous animal and plant species. Within the environmental movement, there was a small radical element that favored direct action rather than legislation.^[64] By the 21st century debates over taking major action to reverse global warming were high on the agenda. The environmental movement in the United States has had much less influence than in Europe, where Green parties played a growing role in politics.

[edit] End of the liberal consensus

During the Nixon years (and through the 1970s), the liberal consensus began to come apart with the election of Ronald Reagan marking the election of the first non-Keynsian administration and the first application of supply-side economics. The alliance with white Southern Democrats had been lost in the Civil Rights era. While the steady enfranchisement of African Americans expanded the electorate to include many new voters sympathetic to liberal views, it was not quite enough to make up for the loss of some Southern Democrats. A tide of conservatism rose in response to perceived failures of liberal policies.^[65] Organized labor, long a bulwark of the liberal consensus, was past the peak of its power in the US and many unions had remained in favor of the Vietnam War even as liberal politicians increasingly turned against it.

In 1980 the leading liberal was Senator Ted Kennedy; he challenged incumbent President Jimmy Carter for the Democratic Party presidential nomination because Carter's failures had disenchanted liberals. Kennedy was decisively defeated, and in turn Carter was defeated by Ronald Reagan.

Historian often use 1979-80 to date a philosophical realignment within the American electorate away from Democratic liberalism and toward Reagan Era conservatism.^[66][67] However, some liberals hold a minority view that there was no real shift and that Kennedy's defeat was merely by historical accident caused by his poor campaign, international crises and Carter's use of the incumbency.^[68]

Abrams (2006) argues that the eclipse of liberalism was caused by a grass-roots populist revolt, often with a Fundamentalist and anti-modern theme, abetted by corporations eager to weaken labor unions and the regulatory regime of the New Deal. The success of liberalism in the first place, he argues, came from efforts of a liberal elite that had entrenched itself in key social, political, and especially judicial positions. These elites, Abrams contends, imposed their brand of liberalism from within some of the least democratic and most insulated institutions, especially the universities, foundations, independent regulatory agencies, and the Supreme Court. With only a weak popular base, liberalism was vulnerable to a populist counterrevolution by the nation's democratic or majoritarian forces.^[69]

[edit] Possibility of a new consensus

As of June 2010, 36% of American voters identify themselves as moderate, and even among conservatives (40%) and liberals (22%) the majority describe themselves as closer to the center than to the extremes.^[9]

Polls have found that young Americans are considerably more liberal than the general population. -

Moreover, Democrats have regained political supremacy by becoming the majority in both houses of Congress and a majority of state legislatures and governorships in 2006, and electing Barack Obama as president in 2008. A 2007 poll showed the population favoring Democrats over Republicans by the largest margin since the late 1960s.^[70]

[edit] "Liberal" as a derogatory epithet

Liberals and conservatives have long argued over policy, but a new line of attack on liberalism opened in the 1960s when a culture war broke out on university campuses between the older established liberals and the younger radicals of the New Left. As Alan Wolfe notes, "no one hated liberals more than leftists."^[71]. The Vietnam war conducted by liberal President Lyndon Johnson was a special target. Liberal E. J. Dionne contends that, "If liberal ideology began to crumble intellectually in the 1960s it did so in part because the New Left represented a highly articulate and able wrecking crew."^[72]

After 1980 fewer and fewer activists and politicians were willing to characterize themselves as liberals. Historian Kevin Boyle explains, "There was a time when liberalism was, in Arthur Schlesinger's words 'a fighting faith'...Over the last three decades, though, liberalism has become an object of ridicule, condemned for its misplaced idealism, vilified for its tendency to equivocate and compromise, and mocked for its embrace of political correctness. Now even the most ardent reformers run from the label, fearing the damage it will inflict..."^[73]

Conservatives have attempted to rebrand the word "liberal" to mean weak, effete, soft on crime, and soft on communism. John Lukacs, in his 2004 essay "The Triumph and Collapse of Liberalism", observed a change in the political usage of the term "liberal" from the 1950s onward asserting that the word "liberal" "has become a Bad Word for millions of Americans."^[74]

The use of pejorative terms such as "bleeding-heart liberal", "tax-and-spend liberal", "cut-and-run liberal", "Massachusetts liberal", "limousine liberal", and "liberal elite" became a common political tactic among conservatives.^[75]

For example, Republican political consultant Arthur J. Finkelstein was known to repeat the word "liberal" in negative television commercials as frequently as possible:

"That's liberal. That's Jack Reed. That's wrong. Call liberal Jack Reed and tell him his record on welfare is just too liberal for you."^[76]

As a consequence few politicians called themselves "liberal," preferring terms such as "progressive" or "moderate."^[77][78]

Geoffrey Nunberg credits the pejorative usage to Nixon's Vice President, Spiro Agnew, who attacked "liberal intellectuals".^[79] Markos Moulitsas points out that the attack on liberals is a well-funded effort by conservative groups that use a wealthy network of "think tanks, training groups, media outlets, and policy centers" to promote their agenda.^[80] George Lakoff notes that political consultants like Frank Luntz have used framing to redefine terms like "liberal" to have negative connotations. "In 2002 four times as much money was spent on research by the right as by the left, and they got four times as much media time....Conservatives, through their think tanks, figured out the importance of framing, and they figured out how to frame every issue."^[81]

Author Ann Coulter went even further in her best-selling book How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must), as she likened liberalism to treason.^[82]. The Conservative Book Service sells a talking doll of Ann Coulter that says, among other things, "Liberals hate America".^[83] Conservative talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity often use anti-liberal slogans; the latter titled a book Deliver Us from Evil: Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism.^[84] The full title of linguist Geoffrey Nunberg's 2006 book on the use of slogans by conservatives to reshape the image of liberalism, Talking Right: How Conservatives Turned Liberalism into a Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Volvo-Driving, New York Times-Reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show is an extended list of right-wing slurs against liberalism.^[85]

[edit] Philosophy of modern liberalism

American liberals describe themselves as open to change and receptive to new ideas.^[86] For example, liberals typically accept scientific ideas that some conservatives reject, such as evolution and global warming.^[87]

In general liberalism is anti-socialist, when socialism means state ownership of the basic means of production and distribution, because American liberals doubt that bases for political opposition and freedom can survive when all power is vested in the state. In line with the general pragmatic, empirical basis of liberalism, American liberal philosophy embraces the idea that if substantial abundance and equality of opportunity can be achieved through a system of mixed enterprise, then there is no need for a rigid and oppressive bureaucracy.^[12] Some liberal public intellectuals have, since the 1950s, moved further toward the general position that markets, when appropriately regulated, can provide better solutions than top-down planning and central control. Paul Krugman argued that, in hitherto-state-dominated functions such as nation-scale energy distribution and telecommunications, marketizations can improve efficiency dramatically.^[88] He also defended a monetary policy -- inflation targeting -- as a solution to Japan's economic slump by saying that it "most nearly approaches the usual goal of modern stabilization policy, which is to provide adequate demand in a clean, unobtrusive way that does not distort the allocation of resources." (These distortions are of a kind that war-time and post-war Keynesian economists had accepted as an inevitable byproduct of fiscal policies that selectively reduced certain consumer taxes and directed spending toward government-managed stimulus projects—even where these economists theorized at a contentious distance from some of Keynes's own, more hands-off, positions, which tended to emphasize stimulating of business investment.^[89]) Thomas Friedman is a liberal journalist who, like Paul Krugman, generally defends free trade as more likely to improve the lot of both rich and poor countries.^[90]

There is a fundamental split among liberals as to the role of the state. Historian H. W. Brands notes "the growth of the state is, by perhaps the most common definition, the essence of modern American liberalism."^[91] But according to Paul Starr, "Liberal constitutions impose constraints on the power of any single public official or branch of government as well as the state as a whole."^[92]

[edit] Morality

According to cognitive linguist George Lakoff, liberal philosophy is based on five basic categories of morality. The first, the promotion of fairness, is generally described as an emphasis on empathy as a desirable trait. With this social contract based on the Golden Rule comes the rationale for many liberal positions. The second category is assistance to those who cannot assist themselves. A nurturing spirit is one that is considered good in liberal philosophy. This leads to the third category, the desire to protect those who cannot defend themselves. The fourth category is the importance of fulfilling one's life; allowing a person to experience all that they can. The fifth and final category is the importance of caring for oneself, since only thus can one act to help others.^[93]

[edit] Modern liberal thinkers and leaders in the United States

[edit] See also

• Economic interventionism
• Progressive Christianity
• Progressivism in the United States

[edit] Works cited

[edit] References and bibliography

• Abrams, Richard M. America Transformed: Sixty Years of Revolutionary Change, 1941–2001 (2006)
• Battista, Andrew. The Revival of Labor Liberalism (2008) 268 pp. ISBN 978-0-252-03232-5 excerpt and text search
• Boyle, Kevin. The UAW and the Heyday of American Liberalism 1945-1968 (1995) on the UAW (auto workers) excerpt and text search
• Brands, H.W. The Strange Death of American Liberalism (2003) excerpt and text search; brief survey of all of American history.
• Dionne, E.J. They Only Look Dead; Why Progressives will Dominate the Next Political Era (1996) excerpt and text search
• Hamby, Alonzo. Liberalism and Its Challengers: From F.D.R. to Bush (1992), by leading historian excerpt and text search
• Hart, Gary. Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st century America (2002) by a leading Democrat
• Hayward, Steven F. The Age of Reagan: The Fall of the Old Liberal Order: 1964-1980 (2009), a conservative interpretation excerpt and text search
• Hays, Samuel P. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985 (1987)
• Kramnick, Isaac and Theodore Lowi. American Political Thought (2006), textbook and reader
• McKee, Guian A. The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race, and Deindustrialization in Philadelphia (2008)
• Matusow, Allen J. The Unraveling of America: A History of Liberalism in the 1960s (1984), by leading historian. excerpt and text search
• Parker, Richard. John Kenneth Galbraith: His Life, His Politics, His Economics (2006); biography of a leading intellectual of 1940s-1960s excerpt and text search
• Rossinow, Doug. Visions of Progress: The Left-Liberal Tradition in America (2008) excerpt and text search
• Starr. Paul. Freedom's Power: The History and Promise of Liberalism (2007), by a leading liberal scholar excerpt and text search
• Stein, Herbert. Presidential Economics: The Making of Economic Policy From Roosevelt to Clinton (3rd ed. 1994)
• Sugrue, Thomas J. Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North (2009) excerpt and text search
• Willard, Charles Arthur. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy (1996); debunks liberalism, arguing that its exaggerated ideals of authenticity, unity, and community have deflected attention from the pervasive incompetence of "the rule of experts."
• Wilentz, Sean. The Age of Reagan: A History 1974-2008 (2008), by a leading liberal.